@a202010: "so, anyway, supposedly, 
to some people, the space
between people anihilates
them all.
supposedly, this is because, you
immediately become an object in
other people's sight.
and then, you begin to see yourself
as an object until you slowly declare
yourself as an object.
you're not a person any more, you're
the object whose identity is dictated
to you by the fact that there are other
people who first see you in the same manner
in which they see a table or a chair or
an apple tree or a water fountain or a
paper cup, and you receive signals
as to how you are seen and
behave accordingly.
...i was gunna include 'garbage can'
but nobody uses garbage cans anymore.
and then you're seen according to your
usefulness in carrying out tasks and
achieving ends.
you're a shovel you're
a rake you're a hand grenade.
and the other people are all
just objects in your sight.
and they behave as if they are objects.
you have ceased to exist.
make yourself useful...
you are obsolete...
oh, go ahead and convince yourself
that you don't objectify everything
and everyone but you'll find in a
very real way, that you are bound
to do just this.
and then someone else can come along and say;
it's the space between people that
gives them all unique identites.
the identification of similarity
characterizes 'the other' as detached
and dissimilar from the observer.
'the other' is like you but not you
you need to know what you
are and what you are not.
and now your little conflict is in place.
define yourself before the
world defines you for you.
but you're already in the process
of defining the world and they you.
you define them as objects
how will you define yourself
in any different manner?
certainly you don't want to sit there
and claim that your love for strawberry
iced cream is a defining attribute.
so you're stuck saying;
"i draw maps"
and you say this because you're
not a very good tap dancer.
so basically, you've got the world defining
you as an object, you defining yourself as
an object, a natural environment composed
of objects, some burdensome overlords
who'd like to keep you as an object,
and this tiny voice inside you
that claims it isn't an object.
who else or what else anywhere will
agree with that tiny voice and tell
you that you are not an object?
what is that tiny voice?
isn't it the same voice that
desribes you and everyone
else as objects?
or do you have two tiny voices?
one who objectifies all things and
one buried under a mountain of rubble?
maybe there's only one you and also
some hideous reverberation like a
hand grenade in a steel container
ripping you to bits, and leaving
you buried under a pile of rubble.
who's gunna dig you out
from under all that rubble
and reconfigure your True Self?
One who is not an object, of course.
One to whom you can not
offer up anything in return.
therefore, One to whom you
can not become an object.
the One who sees you.
the One who can show you.
the One who knows you.
the One who loves you.
an other angle,
you have this tiny speck of
what we'll loosely describe
as your identity.
and you place that identity into objects.
objects that have no sense
of the identity which
you are giving them.
.......look that way->
you practically change places with the chair.
you become the inanimate blob
inhabitting a space that directs
the reality of the given set
of circumstances.
and now, when you leave the chair,
it has captured your identity and,
for you, anyone who sits there takes
on your personalized attribution.
so, you may find yourself wanting
to stand guard over the chair so
that no one can take your place
and rob you of your identity.
and now, you either say;
"my identity is locked in the
chair and i don't want anyone
else to have it."
or;
"no one really did take possession
of the identity that i ceded to
the chair of my own free will."
no one, who had no identity
of [his] own, now has yours.
and you're completely objectified again.
only now, you're tied to a chair
that has no real identity looking
for your self in other objects
that have no real identity either.
you've got one eye on an empty chair
and the other eye is looking for
no one, who has run off with
your identity.
and you get stuck carrying around
this false persona who is a multiplex
aggregate of objectified traits.
but that's all olde news to you.
where are you now?
up from the minutia there
arise some funny bits.
an obvious one;
the erection of a communal
totem that presumably best
describes the ceded identities
of a given group of people.
but we already know that the existing
conditions describe in people this sense
of ownership and the need to possess
objects that placate the sense of
alienation to self,
coupled with this desire to lay
claim to the identities which we
feel we ceded to the existing
conditions in the first place.
so, you turn over your individuality
to a group ethos that appears to
possess all the things which you
crave for yourself but of which
you feel impoverished.
and then, the group ethos becomes your identity.
and your objectification is complete.
you now exist for the sole
purpose of serving the totem.
leaving much more than a bowl of rice
for a momentary identification with
the objectified composite persona
which sits in your chair.
never truly enjoying the 'freedoms'
that you'd like to think the totem
represents and slowly realizing that
the totem actually represents your
total objectification and loss
of personal liberties.
developing in you this sense of
rebellion from the group ethos
and a complete alienation from self.
giving birth to iconoclasts who seek
to rip fame and fortune from their
perches in your temples of idolatry.
which proves meaningless, because 
they will immediately stand themselves 
back up on their perches representative
of the covetous desire to retain that 
thing you never truly possessed 
in the first place.
intimate knowledge of God
personal uniqueness
Love
these things which God's Spirit is
these things which man's
totem can never be. 
man's totem is not even alive.
it is the signatory 
representation of his 
alienation from God.
Micah 4:4-5
Ezekiel 8:1-3
uh, did you know, that when YHWH
was "King" in Israel, there was no
such thing as a "royal" lineage?
no particularly "special" people
who were gooder or better than
anyone else?
God doesn't die, there's
no need to set up any sort
of dynastic succession.
and those people kept erecting
that totem to their own empty
chair, while God is sitting right
there amidst the Mercy Seat.
"you named -me- the burdensome overlord
while you bowed to your own tyrannical rule"
"this after i yanked you -out-
of slavery to the status quo
with a strong hand."
they re-enslaved themselves
because they didn't believe
freedom was possible.
they didn't believe God
could give them rest.
and so, God chased them
around with a sword instead.
out of the frying pan and
in to the furnace of affliction.
the pretense of man's totem is
more reprehensible that slavery
to the status quo.
a pretend freedom for some
on the backs of those who
carry the empty chair.
and like the seed that fell in amongst
the briar patch or sticker bushes,
"the cares of this world
choked off the growth"
and on the rocks;
"the heat of controversy
anihilated the growth"
the one bowed to the status quo
and the other bowed to peer pressures.
because the slavery to the world was
more comfortable than a freedom that
required a perceived element of risk.
but we have continued hope for your 
progression towards Christ, and
and the elimination of anything 
that would stand itself in your way.
look here below,
emphasize these things which relate
to the aforementioned problems
associated with the status quo
and personal identity;
God makes people "kings"
and "priests" and gives
them a "new name" which
only they know.
what is a name?
a device for personal identification.
by assigning you a new name which
only you know, you are granted a
personal identity which is
unique to yourself.
by making you a king and a priest
you are given personal authority
and responsibility coupled with
the necessary understandings and
wisdoms necessary to meld with God
in unity with no self centered
attitudes which bring on schism.
you'll see below that God is the
Temple willed to mankind thru Christ
and you are a component of that Temple.
you'll see that God has a personal
identification and is unique, writes
that upon you thru Christ, and sets
you apart as unique while declaring
you a component of the Body of Christ,
which is God's Temple, which is God.
long story short;
you 'serve' God by fulfilling your
potential and administering that
potential to each other.
you don't cede your identity
to the existing conditions,
and an imaginary group ethos,
you fulfill your potential in
the service of the Body of Christ
of which you are a vital component.
-
Revelation 5:9-10, 19:12, 2:17,
     3:12, 21:22, 1:6, 7:15-17
-"
    @a202010: "<quote>
well, when -you- get a revelation from God
-you'll- be able to say things about God
that you consider to be truthful
statements about God,
and -then- you can wonder if any one will take
your human statements as self derived or God revealed.
=if= you hold that God -can- make God known
to human beings in such a way that -you- will
be able to receive such a revelation and
maybe even -try- to articulate on that revelation,
then you will disprove your own sentiment about
the nature of any human effort ot relay such revelations.
if, however, you hold that God cannot
make God known to human beings,
then you may as well say that there
is no God and just go on about your
day to day drear with all the
eating and drinking you can muster.
-but-
if you claim that such is possible, and only
suggest that yo have not yet had such an experience,
then you have no rightful bizness making any
substantive comments on what exactly and
precisely constitutes such a revelation from God
having -not- received such a thing for yourself.
you do seem to be of the first and third propositions,
you hold the possibility that a God
can make God known to human beings in some manner
and only that -you- have received no
such revelatory experience and therefore,
are silent on the matter.
once again,
the christian demands that you have
the experience for yourself and not
that you pin any hopes on 'their'
statements to such an effect.
what -we- are doing when we 'proclaim salvation,'
and things of that nature, is pointing you -at-
the way to -experience- God, so that -you- can get your
own experience of that thing which -we- already have.
almost exactly as if we said, "drop a ball
from the tower of Pisa and measure the time
it takes to fall" and then lead you through
a methodology where you will be able to more
fully describe that phenomenon known as
the gravitational force.
or simply, "look over there and see what we see"
you don't see and don't know until you look and see.
the -proof- is when -you- see
and not when we -tell- you to look.
so, what exactly do you remember about God?
what exactly -can- you remember about God?
it would have to be something like;
"-OBJECT X- tastes like tomato sauce"
but see, that statement only is
meaningful to someone else who
has had tomato sauce.
you want to describe a thing that
"tastes like tomato sauce" to someone
who has never had tomato sauce.
and so you go searching for things
-like- tomato sauce that the other
person or persons have experienced.
but, for people who have had
tomato sauce, you just say,
"it's like tomato sauce"
and immediately, a stored impression
rises in to conscious memory and they
realize what you -mean-.
which is why, for so many people who
have experienced God, their 'mission'
in life is to get you to open up a can
of tomato sauce and taste it for yourself.
so you can see what they see.
and the tremendous difficulty
of suggesting that "tomato sauce
tastes -like- sweet and salty
vinegar" would be diverted,
seeing as how we will soon discover
that many many things "taste -like-
sweet salty vinegar" -and- "sweet and
salty vinegar" doesn't even begin to
fully describe what tomato sauce
actually tastes like.
sort of like "cut out the middle
man and go right to the source"
because we will describe a thing to
those who have not experienced God as;
"a conscious -living- memory of
a personality we have never seen"
-not- "a concious memory of
a person we have never met"
but to what do -we- ourselves compare
this "God" to? that is, what about us
-is- there that -can- receive a
communion with God?
and that is our own transient likeness
of God which we call -our- "spirit"
but we might also suggest that that
"spirit" is encapsulated in our Faith.
and also, that that Faith is a Gift from God.
almost like the chopped chicken livers bit.
where you cook the chicken livers
and drive out all the waters from
them, and then add chicken fat to
that to reintroduce moisture.
stop laughing, i'm serious.
well, you can laugh, but i
-am- serious, nonetheless.
the tightrope walk here is that
for all practical purposes, your
"spirit" is quickened or made alive
at the same time that you meet God
thru the auspices of God's own Spirit
or that which we refer to as "The Holy Spirit"
and your "spirit" is simultaneously
made alive from obscurity and taken
off to 'sit' at the right hand of God
in likeness to Christ, the Holy Spirit
re-invests your body with Its Life and
more slowly begins to reintroduce this
newly made alive "spirit" back into 
fidelity with your conscious memory.
or, in other words, your "spirit" lays dormant,
your conscious memory receives a message of faith,
God awakens your dormant "spirit" and takes it
to God leaving a seal of that Faith on your
conscious memory which lives and grows.
and this Faith transforms your conscious
memory into the likeness of God as your
"spirit" grows in communion with God
and the one overshadows the other.
i bet there's multiple dozens of ways to say this.
just remember, "spirit" is just a word
and we're edging towards specifying some
identifying characteristic -of- God and how
-you-, a human being, can accept and
appreciate this thing, this "deo-mimetic",
so as to truly experience and appreciate
your -own- unique identification,
and not some exploded distortion
of the existing conditions.
so, don't get too strung out on thinking
that your "spirit" is what makes you alive
and if your spirit leaves you you'll die
and you're not dead so your "spirit"
must be alive.
obviously, the -word- "spirit" can
be used to trigger several different
memory impressions.
and we're not speaking here of
the physical emulation of life.
we're speaking of that Life which God is.
and nudging towards how -you-, a human,
physical, living creature can share in
that Life which -is- God.
a Life that knows no bounds.
spirit is just a word until
it is more than just a word.
don't kid yourself to be stylish.
that's just another snare.
if i didn't get to the point, 
i meant to, and perhaps i'll 
try again.
Q:  how many Angels can dance 
    on the head of a pin?
A:  all of them.
there, _that's_ the point.
they -all- can do it.
all kidding aside;
i'd like to make it shorter, 
but it is somewhat complex.
describe exactly an onion.
your really are left saying things like;
"an onion smells like an onion"
the thing describes itself.
so, if you want to explain onion-ness
to someone who has never seen an onion,
your only resort is to get an onion
and place it before them.
but your flesh is a filter to
the understanding of the onion.
your flesh only allows you to
comprehend things about the onion
that correspond to its sensory
apparatus.
so, you don't get a complete
understanding of the onion by
using your eyes and nose
and tongue.
you get this filtered image of an onion.
the fact that God is not grasped thru
the filter of the flesh is actually an
asset towards a more thorough understanding
and comprehension of the thing itself.
that is, you get a direct impression
unfiltered by finite sensory appartus.
now your only problem is how to
place God before yourself so that
you can grasp an impression.
so, what exactly do you remember about God?
what exactly -can- you remember about God?
"a conscious -living- memory of
a personality we have never seen"
and that's part of the thing;
you -could- say that such a situation
relegates this sort of knowledge of God
to come exclusively -from- "the other side"
that is to say that no amount of man's
desire to find out or wanting to know
would achieve -this- knowledge of God:
that it would -have to- be a knowledge
that came -from- God -to- man.
that would be barring all personal
opinions on the nature of God's
creation and man's world.
"honeysuckle is sweet,
therefore God is nice"
"children dieing of starvation is
difficult to bear, therefore God
is uncaring"
this sort of 'knowledge' is pure surmise
and such without all the actual facts.
like, "he eat's onions, he has
bad breath, therefore onions
are bad because they cause
bad breath"
you haven't even properly concluded
that onions caused bad breath much
less the broad leap that onions are
bad because of this thing.
You need Jesus Christ to 'see' God,
it's not -my- invention it's
God's own providence.
that's the way God made and outlined
for human beings to commune with God.
there is no other way to see salvation."
    @barsoap: "<quote>
He cannot. Let's cast any disagreement about what's God aside for a
moment and cherish this great truth:
Free Will and Consciousness, the gift of God, are a potential of human
beings that is cut loose as soon as a human discovers not to have free
will and not to be conscious. Such is to discover the glory of God.
It cannot be God-given, for God is the creator, not a puppet master.
If a human decides to use energy and effort to receive and cherish
God's gifts, they will be attained. If a human decides otherwise,
or never becomes aware of his mechanicalness, they will not be attained.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
so, it is your contention that God
cannot make God known to human beings.
if you were to say things like;
"Timothy Sutter cannot make Timothy Sutter
known to anyone and everyone must simply
decide for themselves what Timothy Sutter is like"
then there would be a great deal about
Timothy Sutter that you could never know.
but, if it is allowed that
i may expound on my attitudes,
a given person would have that
much more information to go on.
as such, this information -must- come
directly from me and cannot simply be deduced.
as far as a personal Deity is concerned,
you will not be able to simply deduce all of
this deity's personality traits based on
some examination of yourself and your
own surroundings.
such information, therefore, must
come from such a personal Deity."
    @barsoap: "<quote>
Indeed. There is a lot about you I could not ever know.
You know, this great "God knows all your sins" lie was put in action to
hide that Truth from you, by means of false fear. See our other
discussion for more info on that.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @barsoap: "<quote>
The quantity of my knowledge will change, but the possibility of
quality of my knowledge will remain fixed.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
your predilection for malice and sabotage
both self sabotage and malicious interpersonal sabotage
is -not- the finest way to expand your knowledge base."
    @a202010: "<quote>
it may depend on the type of knowledge;
maybe the type of knowledge you are truly
in need of is not in knowledge of this world
but in the knowledge of God.
"well, i know how to get all the
apples i need, but i'm still not happy"
"man does not live by apples alone,
but by every word that proceedes
out of the mouth of God"
learn how to listen
you may just find what you are looking for.
to sit there and demand,
"God =cannot= make God known to me"
is self defeating,
and twiddling your thumbs tring to deduce
the nature of God from -no- direct experience
is an exercise in futility.
so, if 'happiness' has soem 'emotional' aspect,
then, by your positive reinforcem,ent, you are
using mind to change and alter such a thing
showing that 'it' does not have a 'mind'
of its own."
    @a202010: "<quote>
to say that God -cannot- make God known to man is
to suggest that man can -only- gain knowledge by
powers of deduction and not by experience
of phenomena themselves.
meaning, you can -guess- what that white powder
inside of the jar is, but you cannpot take a powder
out of the bottle and carry out a set of tests
which will lead you to defiitely state,
"this is cyanide and not table salt"
at first glance, you might think that any
white powder is sugar or salt but unless
you allow the substance to tell you what it is,
you will be -guessing- and your -guesses-
-can- be wrong.
so, quite frankly, inasmuch as you may -nothing-
else to go on in making guesses -about- the nature
of a Deity, the Divine Nature if you prefer,
there would be no other way at all -except-
the experiencing of such a phenomenon to
gain any sort of 'knowledge' about 'jeffreymoses@example.com.
the christian speaks of communion
-with- "the Mind of Christ"
and that's the whole bit,
that God has made a way to reach into our
lives and show the phenomenon of God to
us in a very direct manner.
truly, there -is- no 'other' way."
    @barsoap: "<quote>
Certainly. Much more, it depends on the usage of the right knowledge,
or sheer luck.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @barsoap: "<quote>
You're reading my desires off my mind. Stop it.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @barsoap: "<quote>
We have to become clear about what we mean by "know".
Human always knows God in the sense that a baseball knows the bat that
send it on its way. Human usually does not know the batter, and if he
imagines doing so, he usually only imagines and at best makes up deities
to his taste.
To know the batter means to know the unity of batter and bat. Only then
Human can stop imagining a batter and change himself from filling a hole
in his mind to perceive the the Batter.
God cannot see through one's eyes before one looked through His.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
if you have not had an experience of God's
own presence via the auspices of God's own Spirit,
then you have very little to say about the jeffreymoses@example.com.
by your own statemnets,
you are as one who has not seen
and simply says, "there is nothing to see.""
    @a202010: "<quote>
inasmuch as -you- do not have
the 'right' knowledge you can
sit around waiting for your
lucky numbers to come up
all you like, but for -you-
to suggest that anyone else wait
for your lucky numbers to come up
is simpy -you- tryinjg to -impose-
your lack on others."
    @barsoap: "<quote>
Then what slacker stuff interests you?
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
you must have been ignoring me at the time
and decided to make up what you wanted
to hear instead."
    @barsoap: "<quote>
I discern.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @barsoap: "<quote>
I am. But you don't understand.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
no, -you- want a -machine- to tell me what's what,
cuz you have worse pattern recognition abilities that it does."
    @barsoap: "<quote>
You speak like you had any idea how to do pattern recognition on a
touring machine.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
===
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit,
while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes
so that it will be even more fruitful. You are
already clean because of the word I have spoken
to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you.
No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain
in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless
you remain in me.
"I am the vine; you are the branches.
If a man remains in me and I in him,
he will bear much fruit; apart from me
you can do nothing. If anyone does not
remain in me, he is like a branch that
is thrown away and withers; such branches
are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
If you remain in me and my words remain in you,
ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.
This is to my Father's glory, that you bear
much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
                                      John 15:1-8
==="
    @barsoap: "<quote>
Beautiful words expressing nothing more than begging.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @barsoap: "<quote>
On the contrary. You should be assailed for not being naked.
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited. "
    @a202010: "<quote>
no, just you based on some of what you say.
you seem enamored with yourself,
but in the sort of 'two year old' sense,
and not like love, of self or of God.
and then it's like you detest your own self.
i don't see any 'great acting' nor 'magic'
nor even particularly good ideas coming
from your retinue of -names- which all have
the 'same' tiresome character elements.
so, evidently, this 'voodoo' you seem to
feel is so profound, is lost on me, who is
simply not seeing it.
i've left you your opportunity to tell
how i 'just don't get it' but the simple
fact is, that given what i do see,
i just don't want it."
    @a202010: "some bits about "the Sinai compact"
Sinai was a formal written contract 
between God and a peculiar people.
this in itself is unique among 
the world's "religious" practices.
never before was there such an actual 
"bond" or "ligation" between God and man.
and this bonding came from the other side.
that is, _God_ initiated the Sinai Covenant 
and the subsequent full redemption
of mankind thru Christ.
there is no other thing like it anywhere.
God asked for -and- provided the Lamb.
God initiated a covenant of circumcision with Abraham.
unique in all the world.
God explained the circumcision of the heart to Moses.
unique in all the world.
God gave the Holy Spirit to man thru Christ
sealing the covenant of Promise made to Abraham
which -is- a circumcision of the heart and the 
vital inscription of God's own manner upon 
man thru divine declaration and indwellimg.
taking the contract away from an 'outside looking in'
view of God from afar on tablets of stone and speaking 
from behind a veil to an 'inside working out' view of God 
inscribed in and on man's own psyche.
unique in all the world.
there is no other.
that Sinai contract seems so alien.
with this special reverence 
for pure monogamous marriage.
what group of warlord figures would 
suggest that a man take one wife 
and never take another?
when historically amongst human beings, 
women were considered the booty 
of military conquest.
a slavedriver would never give anyone any days off.
so, how can anyone suggest that YHWH 
is an ancient warlord archetype when 
he institutes some hairbrained idea 
like pure monogamous marriage, 
and days off from toil?
what slavedriver, or plain old human being, 
for that matter, would mandate interest free 
loans for and between members of the society?
why only ask 10 measely percent 
of any increase as a tax?
[not that the tithe was a tax]
only 99.94% of the population that found 
itself affiliated with this contract 
rejected it outright and never lived it.
what human being -would- invent such a standard?
only to watch that thing which is the sole 
identifying signature of the population 
be dashed bashed and discreditted 
over and over again?
mandatory rest days, from a warlord figure?
monogamous marriage, from a warlord?
interest free loans from a warlord?
not likely.
and there's other stuff like that.
-
Leviticus 25:35-38
"If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls 
into poverty among you, then you shall help him, 
like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live 
with you. Take no usury or interest from him; 
but fear your God, that your brother may live with you.
You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor 
lend him your food at a profit. I am YHWH your God, 
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, 
to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. 
Exodus 22:25-26
"If you lend money to one of my people among you 
who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge 
him no interest. If you take your neighbor's cloak 
as a pledge, return it to him by sunset, 
-
at any rate, no offense, but have you looked 
at the interest rates associated with 
credit card debt?
it's usurious.
not that anyone's asking -you- people 
to offer up loans free of interest, 
but usury still ain't too kosher.
yeah, and human beings invented this sort of standard.
power mad control freak human beings 
invented -this- sort of standard?
and all this talk about "love" what 
warlord figure would institute 
crazy things like that?
yeah right, Alexander conquers the plain 
and then looks around and starts rambling 
on about "love"
that dude drank himself into an early grave 
after he had no more battles to fight and 
his generals divided up the conquest.
-that's- the more likely human application.
but even 'greece' is tainted by 
the existance of Israel as a people.
and who knows who the Dorians 
who invaded greece from the North were?
scattered national Israel more than likely.
i mean, it's off that people should 
villify YHWH as hyper-masculine and 
super-patriarchal when there are these 
very gentle statements about being 
all nice and stuff.
Alexander turns into Mr. Rogers after he's finished.
not that fatherhood is such an ugly thing.
but Moses is never really looked 
upon as some sort of warlord 
figure anyway.
so, where they get that i don't know.
evidently becuz Saul replaced YHWH 
as King of Israel and he was 
a right bloody bastard.
but he was the best Israel had to offer at the time.
seems to me, you can't get 
away with calling YHWH a monster.
you -can- get away with calling 
a lot of human beings monsters.
but human beings still can't even come 
close to living _UP_ to that standard 
set jeffreymoses@example.com.
so they alter that Law to fit themselves better.
why would human beings have to alter a law 
they made themselves to fit themselves better?
why would they have to -erode- the impact to make 
this Law -less- forceful if they were progressing 
from a primitive infancy to a more mature adulthood?
no compute."
    @marika5000: ""J.P. "Julian Sebastian" Bacchae" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:c5229452-850a-4d20-aa53-
<quote>
The same info heard here.  Do I know any of them?
mk5000
<url> "
    @marika5000: ""Timothy Sutter" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
more proof
it's because we use each other's accounts
mk5000
<url> "
    @marika5000: ""Timothy Sutter" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
pardon?
the use of each other's accounts was a metaphor for your discussion of space 
between us.
I didn't think it was a particularly imaginative one, but I also didn't 
think it was particularly botlike either.  whatEVer.
mk5000
<url> "
    @a202010: "<quote>
you can dress yourself up as any 'bot' yo ulike
petense itself won't contribute to your imagination."
    @a202010: "<quote>
you're excused
well, you're not using my account.
whosever account you do share
and, if you also share 'online identities'
with such person or persons
is simply a collectivization of sorts.
it is then possible
that your 'grouip' with whom you share accounts
as each ceded away his or her real identity
to some group ethos which is not entirely
reflective of your individual thoughts
and desires etc.
how you 'group' of sharers views me or
anyone outside of the 'group'
remains an issue.
if several people are sharing online
'identities' in the way of names and e-mail addresses
it functions in much the same way as a 'bot' functions.
meaning
-nobody- is 'marika'
and not even;
'all in the group may at some time be marika'
'marika' is a phantasm
Timothy Sutter is a real, actual human being."
    @marika5000: ""Timothy Sutter" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
and yet, you are not unique
mk5000
<url> "
    @marika5000: ""Timothy Sutter" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
it had another server crash becuase of a huge power outage on this
side of town here, so it couldn't get much done electronically the
past few days.
mk5000
"Some nights I thirst for real blood, for real knives, for real cries. And 
then the flash of steel from real guns in real life really fills my mind. 
Then I really miss what really did exist when I held your throat so tight. 
And I miss the bus as it swerved from us and almost came crashing to its 
side."-For Real
Okkervil River - "
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 31, "forum_name": "alt.timothy.sutter.20150203.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.timothy.parquet'}